This complaint was filed by Minor Somnath Nath and his father Chinmoy Roy against OP No. 1, Dr. Ratna Biswas (Sanyal), OP No. 2, Dr. Kajal Pandit, OP No. 3, Manager, Central Nursing Home, OP No. 4, Aditya Medical Park, Barasat and OP No. 5, B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre, Kolkata.
The complainant No. 2, Chinmay Nath married to Sweety Nath who was pregnant thereafter. During pregnancy she was treated by Dr. Ratna Biswas from 20.10.10 to 03.07.11. Dr. Biswas advised Chinmay to contact Dr. Kajal Pandit and Dr. K.Pandit was contacted on 03.07.11 at his chamber at central Nursing Home at Ranaghat. The pregnant wife of Chinmay was again examined on 22.07.11 and advised to USG. USG was done and the report was placed before Dr. Pandit for his examination on 02.08.11. On seeing the report Dr. Pandit advised admission of the patient on 08.08.11 at his Nursing Home ( Central Nursing Home, Ranaghat). Dr. Pandit started LUCS on 08.08.11 at about 9.10 hrs, and at about 9.20 hrs a male child was born who is complaint No. 1, Somnath Nath. The operation ended at 9.45 hrs. When the patient party was invited to see the patient they found that the patient was unconscious and was under drip. At about 4pm during visiting hours the patient party talked to the patient who was alright without any sign of illness. On 09.08.11 the patient party observed that the patient had been suffocating and the condition of the patient had been worsening since 9.30am. At about 11.45 hrs on the same date, the doctor informed the patient party that the Nursing Home had no ICU and ventilation facility. The doctor recommended transfer of the patient to the nearest Hospital. Ambulance was not arranged by the Nursing Home. The patient party was compelled to hire a vehicle and in order to take the patient at Aditya Medical Park, Barasat and on transfer the patient was taken to B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre where she was admitted on 10.08.11 at about 00.30 hrs. Tests were done and treatment was given but at about 9.20 a.m. Sweety Nath died. As per B.M. Birla Heart Research Institute the patient died due to “Cardio respiratory failure in a case of Post Partum Cardiomopathy, septicemia due to septicemic shock, ARDS Multiorgan Failure in Post LUCS Status.”
Dr. Pandit noted on 09.08.11 at about 11.30am that the patient was suffering from acute respiratory distress since 11am. The physical disorder of the patient was due to carelessness of Dr. Kajal Pandit on Central Nursing Home, Ranaghat. The Nursing Home and the doctors should have discharged the patient on 09.08.2011 at about 11.30am when respiratory distress was detected. Arrangement of ICU and ventilator is a duty of any Nursing Home along with blood and oxygen facilities where LUCS was done for delivery of children but the Central Nursing Home did not provide those facilities to the patient. The doctor did not record the proper condition of the patient when it was necessary in order to save the life of the patient without performing ECG the doctor consulted the general physician. Dr. Kajal Pandit falsely recorded that the patient was suffering from respiratory distress at 11am on 09.08.11. Actually, the patient was feeling suffocation since 9.30am.
There was gross deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the doctor which led to the death of the patient, wife of Chinmoy Nath and mother of Somnath. The date and time of admission on the Central Nursing Home was 08.08.11 at about 7.00 am. The cause of action arose on and from 08.08.11 and 09.08.11. The complainants claim compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- for pre-mature death of Sweety Nath plus Rs. 90,000/- for cost of the suit.
Written version was filed by OP No. 1 on 04.09.13. It is admitted by OP No. 1 that the victim, Sweety Nath was under treatment of OP No. 1 from October, 10 to July, 11 and hence, according to the dates of cause of action mentioned by the complainant as 08.08.11 and 09.08.11, the OP No. 1 has no liability in the instant case. The OP No. 1 has clearly mentioned that the OP No. 2 conducted LUCS of the victim. Thus, the OP No 1 has no negligence and the case should be dismissed against OP No. 1.
The opposite party No. 2 filed written version on 24th July, 2013 challenging the allegations of the complainant. The brief facts of the written version of OP No. 2 are as below:-
The claim of the OP of Rs. 19,90,000/- is excessive and the petitioner is not entitled to get the same. OP No. 2 conducted LUCS and advised the victim Sweety Nath to take admission at any Nursing Home of her choice on 08.08.11. The patient took admission at Central Nursing Home, Ranaghat on 09.08.11. OP No 2 came to know that the patient was suffering from acute respiratory distress and immediately looked into the matter at 11.30 am and advised transferring of the patient to any higher centre with ICU facilities. OP No. 2 is not guilty of deficiency in service or any negligence.
OP No. 5 on 29.08.13 filed a written version challenging the allegations of the complainants. OP No. 5 pleaded in the written version that it has no fault and referred 2009 (1) CPJ 32 (SC). The complainant / petitioner did not follow the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and did not refer the case for opinion of medical experts before proceedings in the matter. The complainant did not allege deficiency in service or shortcoming facilities in BM Birla Heart Research Institute and hence the case should be dismissed against OP No. 5. Copy of Bed Head Ticket & Death Certificate have been mentioned as A and B in order to support the contention of the OP No. 5.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Are the complainants consumers?
- Point No. 2: Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Point No. 3: Was the doctor conducting LUCS (Dr. Pandit) responsible for any
gross and negligence act?
- Point No. 4: Are the complainants entitled to get any relief from OP No. 2 & 3?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
From the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record we are inclined to hold that the complainant No. 1 & 2 both are consumers as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because both of them are beneficiaries of the service of Dr. Kajal Pandit, Dr. Ratna Biswas, Central Nursing Home – Ranaghat, Aditya Medical Park – Barasat, and B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre – Kolkata.
Now the question is whether the OPs are liable for deficiency in service. The term “deficiency” has defined under Section 2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It means “any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.
We have to also consider whether the OPs have resorted to unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that means the complainant is duty bound to establish in the instant case that there was deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice. In other words, the complainant has to prove adoption of unfair method or unfair deception practice or means deceptive by the opposite parties.
Opposite party No. 1 took great care of victim, Sweety during her pregnancy but she was not responsible for the incident or accident after 08.08.11.
On careful scrutiny of record we find that OP No. 3 and OP No. 4 did not file written version and also contest the case of the complainant in spite of service of notice upon them. Hence, the case is being decided ex parte against OP No. 3 and OP No. 4.
The complainant filed written argument on 20.07.14. In the written argument the complainant has highlighted that according to OP No. 5, the patient died due to Cardio respiratory failure in a case of Post Partum Cardiomyopathy, Septicemia due to (or as a consequence of) septicemic shock, ARDS and Multiorgan failure in Post LUCS status.
It has been also argued by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the patient got the aforesaid physical disorders due to the carelessness of Dr. Kajal Pandit, the OP No. 2 and the Central Nursing Home at Ranaghat, OP No. 3. It has also been argued that the Nursing Home, OP 3 discharged the patient along with OP No. 2 doctor when the condition of the patient became critical. The Nursing Home did not provide ambulance and other medicinal facilities for respiratory problem of the victim. According to the discharge certificate / transfer certificate dtd. 27.08.11 only general physician was consulted before transfer of the patient for proper management. This document of Central Nursing Home mentions that the patient developed sudden onset of respiratory distress at around 10.30 am. On 08.08.11 caesarian section was done to the victim and on and from 09.08.11 and since 11am she was suffering from acute respiratory distress vide the certificate of central Nursing Home dtd. 09.08.11 (11.30am).
The medical documents of Aditya Medical Park goes to show that on 09.08.11, the patient was admitted with severe respiratory distress and urgent intubation was done.
It has been further argued that arrangement of ICU and ventilation are sine qua non for every Nursing Home where LUCS is being done for delivery of children but the OP No. 3, Nursing Home did not provide the said facilities. It is strongly argued that LUCS is a major operation but Nursing Home was not equipped to meet exigencies.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 2 has argued that there was no negligence on the part of the OP No. 2, Dr. Kajal Pandit as Dr. Pandit immediately injected the medicines of S.O.S. before shifting of the patient to Nursing Home at Aditya Medical Park. Moreover, it has been stressed by the Ld. Advocate that OP No. 2 immediately looked into the matter at about 11.30am and advised the patient party to shift the patient at any higher centre.
Now, let us look at the evidence of the opposite parties.
OP No. 2 and 5 filed an affidavit-in-chief and the complainants filed thereafter interrogatories. Thereafter, OP No. 2 filed reply but OP No. 5 did not file any reply to the interrogatories given by the complainants.
Our attention has been drawn to the answer of OP No. 2 where he simply said that record would speak and bed-head-ticket would speak, but no bed-head-ticket was placed before the Forum. It has been further argued that OP No. 2 had done LUCS of the patient at the Nursing Home of OP No. 3 where there was no facility of ICU and ventilation. This has been highlighted as negligence and deficiency on the part of the OP No. 2. Moreover, it has been further argued that no heart specialist was called by OP No. 2 or OP No. 3 to make ECG. It is admitted position that the patient was suffering from acute respiratory distress. In answer to question (set No.-6) the OP No. 2 only stated that record would speak. The OP No. 2 did not answer the following questions put to him in set No. 6.
“Where were you at the time? What were you doing at that time? After hearing the deteriorated condition of the patient how much time did you spend at that place? Mention the time when did you visit the patient at Central Nursing Home at Ranaghat after knowing the patient’s condition. How long time did you spend to do the same? Did you direct / advice the Nursing Home to call a heart specialist to attend the patient when you observed that the patient was suffering from acute respiratory distress? How did you diagnose that the patient was suffering from acute respiratory distress? Did you perform ECG?”
No satisfactory reply came from the doctor. “The recess would speak and bed-head-ticket would speak” was the evasive replies given by OP No. 2, Dr. Kajal Pandit.
The essential components of negligence are:
(1) Duty (2) Breach of the duty (3) resulting in damage – A professional may be held liable for negligence either when he did not possess requisite skills which he sees to have possessed or did not exercise with reasonable components in the given case, the skill which he possess (2005) 6 SCC 1, Jack of Mathuse Case Hon'ble Chief Justice Lahoti had accepted Bolam test. In the IMA vs. V.P. Santha’s Case, (AIR 1996 SC 550) it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that medical service comes under the definition of Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act.
In (2009) 9 SCC 221, Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation allowing the civil appeal dismissing the criminal appeal. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted that the principles of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in the instant case. It is only a rule of evidence and it operates in the domain in civil law specially in case of torts.
Medical profession is considered to be the most pious profession wherein a doctor is placed only Section 2, almighty God because he renders humanitarian service i.e., the Forum should not allow any vexation allegations against the doctor.
Regarding the Hospital and Nursing Home the Hon'ble National Commission has held in 1 (2008) CPJ 68 (NC) that lack of sufficient staff to handle emergencies the Hospital or Nursing Home would be vicariously liable for the negligence on the part of their employees and also for not having sufficient staff to deal with emergencies.
In Tagore’s Hospital case I (2008) CPJ 360 (NC) it was held by the Hon'ble Commission:-
“It is sheer negligence on the part of Nursing Home as they allowed the patient to sink from critical condition to fatal condition by not giving the necessary & timely treatment as they clearly shirked their own responsibility. Gross medical mistake will always result in a finding of negligence.”
In Dr. Suresh Gupta’s case (MANU /SC/0579/2004:2004 CrL J 3870 it was held by the S.C. that the doctor has civil liability for his negligent act as there was a lack of care and precaution. The doctor was held not criminally liable.
In (2009) 9 SCC 221, Dr. Kunal Saha Case, the S.C. allowed the Civil Appeal against the order of Hon'ble National Commission and held that the Hospital & doctors were negligent under Consumer Protection Act.
A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.
We have to also consider whether OP No. 3 and OP No. 4 resorted unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sections 2(u) of MRTP Act. We have also gone through 36A of the MRTP Act in order to ascertain the liability of the OPs. We have also gone the ratio of the case reported in AIR 2003 SC 317 and (2008) 4 SCC 504.
We have also meticulously gone through the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court reported in (2015) 1 SCC 429 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the complainant has to plea punitive damages if he wants to get relief for punitive damage. Moreover, the Hon'ble Court has further held that the complainant has to establish that unfair trade practice has caused loss of injury. If the complainant can prove the same the claim would come under Section 2(1)(r). We have also considered the legislation intention of the Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide for the protection of the interest of the consumer. The law meets long-felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory.
We have to harmoniously read Section 2(d)(i) and 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
We have meticulously gone through the following case laws.
- IV (2014) CPJ 766 (NC)
- III (2008) CPJ 361
- II (2009) CPJ 205
- III (2006) CPJ 150
- IV (2008) CPJ 23
- I (2003) CPJ 180 (NC)
In 2014 decision, it was held that the deficiency in service has been proved for their failure to transfer the patient to cardiac care centre with required alacrity. The Hon'ble National Commission has held that there was no medical negligence as such.
In 2008 decision, it was held that the Forum should have allowed expert opinion on the basis of the application seeking expert medical opinion.
In 2005 decision, it was held that the complainant is a consumer who was entitled to get relief for not letting ambulance of Nursing Home. It was a case of delivery and death was due to post purtum haemorrhage. Doctor who undertook the responsibility of the patient was to make all arrangements to meet any emergency.
In 2006 decision, it was held that lack of infrastructure in Hospital amounts to deficiency in service. The doctor res ipsa loquitur was applied to award compensation.
In 2003 decision, it was held that the Nursing Home have no proper arrangements to meet emergencies because it was not properly equipped. It was held deficiency in service. In the instant case the patient died due to profuse bleeding after delivery with the help of forceps.
In 2008 decision, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh State Commission has highlighted to need of expert opinion to guide and assist the court. In the instant case infection developed despite precaution after delivery and caesarian operation of the condition and the patient deteriorated who expired later.
Ld. Advocate for the OP highlighted the need for expert opinion and Ld. Advocate for complainant submitted that this is a clear case of negligence of the doctor and deficiency in service of the Nursing Home.
Ld. Advocate for the OP submitted that this is not a case of res ipsa loquitur and the complainant is duty bound to prove its case.
At the time of arguments the following terms were highlighted by the Ld. Advocate of both sides.
Cardiomyopathy which means an acute, sub-acute or chronic disorder of heart muscle.
Septicemia which means the persistence multiplication of living bacteria in the blood stream (vide “Churchill Livingstone” – Pocket Medical Dictionary).
It has been argued that the OP No. 2, Dr. Kajal Pandit alias Kajal Ch. Pandit was not responsible for cardiomyopaty and septicemia of Mrs. Sweety Nath.
In brief note of argument the OP No. 2, 3 and 5 have stated that on 09.08.11 up to 9 am no abnormalcy of the victim was found and hence, OP No. 2 advised liquid diet. It has been further argued in BNA that cardio respiratory distress was a sudden incident for which proper steps was taken by OP No. 2 and 3. At page 4 of the argument we find that normal physical status of the patient were mentioned by the doctor on 08.08.11 at 7am when she was admitted. We have also gone through the following case laws for proper appreciation of legal position:-
(1) II (2013) CPJ 622 (NC)
(2) (2011) CPJ 289 (NC)
In 2013 decision, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that a major caesarian like hysterectomy under general Anaesthesia without ensuring life saving facilities was not desirable. It is argued that such facts tally with the present case.
In 2011 decision, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that when the Hospital is well equipped and it has not taken reasonable care it is liable vicariously for post-operative complicacy. It was further held that the greater need of care was required than administered. The Hon'ble Commission has enhanced the compensation and held that no expert opinion is required.
This case helps a lot to strengthen the case of the complainant, it is argued by Ld. Advocate for the complainant.
We have also gone through II (2011) CPJ 524 wherein AP State Commission held that the multispecialty Hospital was negligent in the post operative stage of caesarian surgery.
In AIR 1995 MP 150 the Hon'ble MP High Court has held that a civil surgeon was liable for appendix operation in an ill equipped Hospital without doing necessary investigation & without preparing patient for operation. The same allegation arises in the case at hand.
Now let us come to the Latin principle Res Ipsa Loquitur which means the thing speaks for itself and proves itself.
It is admitted position that the doctor (OP No. 2) Kajal Pandit operated the patient (LUCS) which is a major caesarian section. It is also admitted that the patient developed septicaemia & cardio respiratory problem among the other ailments but all problems cropped up in post LUCS status (vide form No. 4 of BM Birla Heart Research Centre’s death certificate dtd. 10.08.11).
Aditya Medical Park in its discharge summery wrote that Sweety Nath was admitted with severe respiratory distress on 09.08.11 (patient registration No. 2796). Aditya Medical Park, OP No. 4 gave did urgent intubation of Sweety Nath. It diagnosed provisionally post partum miocardiac infraction.
On 09.08.11 at 11.30 am the central Nursing Home (OP No. 3) & its doctor (OP 2) admitted that Sweety Nath was suffering from acute respiratory distress since 11.00 am but the prescription was made and treatment was given at 11.30 am that means half an hour late by OP No. 2, Dr. K. Pandit. Dr. Pandit referred the patient to any institute with ICU & ventilation. The prescription of Dr. Pandit, OP No. 2 dtd. 27.08.11 of the patient, Mrs. Sweety Nath goes to show that the patient was admitted at 8 am on 08.08.11. From the document of admission ticket of Central Nursing Home we find that the time of admission has been rightly written but the time of discharge has been wrongly written by the Central Nursing Home authorities as 13.08.11 at 5.15 pm (vide registration No. 6097 the name of the patient - Sweety Nath). This reflects casual approach of OP No. 3. Sweety Nath gave permission for her operation by Dr. K.C. Pandit on 08.08.11. From the intake & output chart dtd. 08.08.11 & 09.08.11, no respiratory complication has been noted. From the bed head ticket dtd. 09.08.11 we find that at about 11.20 am it was detected that there was sudden onset of respiratory distress at around 11 am. No documents is forthcoming to ascertain cardiac condition of the patient before surgery. No x-ray report of chest or ECG of the patient was done by OP No. 2 as precautionary measure before such a major LUCS operation. It is argued that from such respiratory distress the patient had been suffering since 9am and not 11am on 09.08.11.
It is not clear to us as to why delay was there on the part of the doctor & the Nursing Home in a case of acute respiratory distress of the patient. Dr. G.C. Sau, a general physician was called who examined the patient & advised urgent shifting.
We find that the name of the owner of the Nursing Home is Sri Swapan Kr Majumder, Biswas Para, Ranaght, Dist. Nadia. The licence of the Nursing Home is valid up to 27.12.15. The owner has not been impleaded as a party.
It is admitted position that Central Nursing Home, opposite party No. 3 has a Manager / Superintendent who is duty bound to look after the well being & nursing of the patients admitted.
Our attention was drawn to AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2836 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there was deficiency in service as contemplated under Section 2(i)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held in Para- 20 of the judgment the parents of the victim should be compensated for financial hardship in the case of medical negligence.
It is well settled that Nursing Home / Hospital is vicariously liable of the acts for his doctor (vide AIR (2004) SC 5088).
It is crystal clear from the facts & the circumstances of the case that not only the doctor (OP No. 2) who operated the patient but also the Nursing Home (OP No. 3) were responsible for delay in taking care of the acute respiratory distress of Sweety Nath from 11.00 am to 11.30 am that means at least half an hour. After half an hour no expert of cardiologist was consulted by Dr. Kajal Pandit or Central Nursing Home. OP No. 3 arranged for oxygen to Sweety Nath. A general physician was called. His name is Dr. G.C. Sau who examined the patient & advised urgent shifting of the patient to any ICU with ventilator. It was not a case of the general physician. It was a case of cardiology. Neither Dr. Pandit nor Dr. G. Sau is a cardiologist who reported that Sweety Nath who was suffering from respiratory distress since 11.00 am. It is a deficiency in service on the part of the Nursing Home, OP No. 3. It is also medical negligence on the part of the doctor in not taking proper care of the caesarian patient suffering from septicemia & acute respiratory distress. It is argued that the Nursing Home did not follow the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Rules, 2003. OP No. 3, Nursing Home although arranged for LUCS he did not take proper caution to take care of post operative complicacy as it happens in case of Sweety Nath. No LUCS operation should have been done without proper post operational life saving support in Nursing Home.
An ordinary prudent man will say that the doctor / OP No. 2 was negligent while treating Swetty Nath. Thus in view of above analysis, we hold that the complainants are consumers. OP No. 3 & Dr. Pandit / OP No. 2 were responsible for sudden deterioration of the condition of the patient who is left uncared for half an hour or more by the doctor and the Nursing Home. It is also proved that this Hospital was ill equipped. The doctrine of Res Ipso Loquitur squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case (AIR 2000 Mad 340). Hence, we hold that the complainants are entitled to get relief from the OP No. 2 & 3 & we don’t find any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1, 4 & 5. Nor Ld. Advocates pressed for any liability of them during argument.
The complainants have claimed Rs. 90,000/- for treatment of Sweety Nath after LUCS operation for post operational complicacies. The complainants have also prayed for compensation of Rs. 19,00,000/- thus, total claim is Rs. 19,90,000/- plus cost of the suit.
The urfortunate child Somenath, complainant No. 1 could not get the love & affection of her mother at all as she died at B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre on 10.08.11 at 9.20 am. Complainant No. 2, Chinmay Nath should also be compensated for loss of his wife. He lost the company & association his better half.
Thus, death of Sweety Nath due to cause of negligent act of doctor & deficiency in service of Nursing Home have put the complainants to much suffering, hardship & loss.
We have to quantify the damages to which the damages or compensated to which the complainants are lively entitled. The post operative complicacies were treated at Aditya Medical Park & B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre on 09.08.11 & 10.08.11 respectively. Hence, the complainant are entitled to get Rs. 90,000/- for medical expenses of Sweety Nath in post LUCS status for the correctional treatment after caesarian section of Sweety Nath. In our opinion the claim of Rs. 19,00,000/- as compensation is exorbitant. Thus, we quantify the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to be paid by Dr. Kajal Pandit OP No. 2 & Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid by OP No. 3, Manager / Superintendent, Central Nursing Home, Ranaghat. The amount of compensation is quantify having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case. The cost of the suit i.e., means Rs. 5,000/- shall be borne by the OP No. 2 & 3 in equal shares of Rs. 2,500/-. And the correctional medical expenses of Rs. 90,000/- shall be borne in equal shares by the OP No. 2 & OP No. 3 equally.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case CC/2012/84 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No. 2 & 3 & disallowed against OP No. 4 & 5 with cost.
Thus, Rs. 45,000/- plus Rs. 2,500/- plus Rs. 4,00,000/- shall be paid by the OP No. 2, Dr. Kajal Pandit in total Rs. 4,47,500/- & Rs. 45,000/- plus Rs. 2,500/- plus Rs. 2,00,000/- in total Rs. 2,47,500/- shall be paid by the OP No. 3, Central Nursing Home, Ranaghat. The amounts mentioned above shall be paid within one month from this date failing which penal interest @ 500/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree. If the penal interest is collected it shall be deposited by the OPs in the account of President, D.C.D.R.F., Nadia.
If the OPs fail to comply the above order within stipulated time & disobey order of this Forum the OPs shall be liable proceed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OPs may be sent to jail for non-compliance of the order of this Forum.
Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
